|
Really need to check the second print out. I've heard the difference is actually pretty important.
Still haven't gotten to play a FC game yet, but I've got some campaign ideas I'm sitting on that would probably work better there than under PF.
Still curious about how well the two rulesets can be mashed together. That monster building section in the first printing was really nice.
I'd say you have to check Crafty's boards for ongoing discussion.
That said, I have a love/annoyed relationship with FC. There are many, many aspects of the game that I absolutely love. There are a few rules that make me scratch my head and some I outright dislike.
It also doesn't help that I paid for the PDF and bought a physical copy out of a desire to support Crafty Games. When the 2nd edition (or whatever they're calling it) came out so soon after and was much more than an errata clean-up, I felt a bit burned.
I keep looking for ways to incorporate elements of the game into my PF games. However, despite similarities, the differences are significant enough that it's not as easy to do as with your standard OGL game. Despite attempting it every few months, I ultimately decide it's more trouble than it's worth.
I would love to play in a FC game to really get the nuances of the system and decide if it could become my go-to game. But as a GM, it's too much of an investment in time & prep for something that might not take off with my groups when PF is rocking the house.
I like both. Which doesn't exactly provide instant magical clarification, but I want to establish the appreciation for both workings before I comment further.
As for the why, a big part of the answers ties into the style of game I feel like running. I like to use FantasyCraft for certain games to emulate the feel of certain other cinematic settings and themes - the special techniques from, say, the Disgaea series of games (due to weapon feat chains and stances and tricks that accompany); The feel of a lower-tech non-magic Monster Hunter game (where food is needed for stamina and becomes part of the essential 'buff' set where magic is not available in a typical wiggle-finger sense); my occasional Dynasty Warriors games foray (full of mooks, melee, and epic quantities of HAM!); the list goes on.
When I want a more explicitly dungeon-crawly game I trend Pathfinder, though it ends up being more like Dungeon Siege meets Diablo, with far more interesting NPC interactions and a helping of the Elder Scrolls for sandboxy goodness. Which, granted, I've been a console/PC gamer for nearly as long as I've been into tabletop, but I find it easiest to convey analogs along specific lines in order to not utterly bury people in overwhelming quantities geekery.
I'm hoping Ultimate Combat will help me move my Massive Army Mighty Brawling type games Pathfinder-wards.
|
Second Edition has a number of (IMO) sorely needed adjustements to races and origins/talents, in addition to the integration of a number of erratas and typo revisions/term switching.
It's quite interesting when comparing the balance issues that have been addressed, and I feel it's a great system. A definite improvement.
I'm still not really fond of the magic system, but it's a personal quibble.
Moreover, with the recent release of the Adventure Companion, which features more crunchy stuff (classes of all the three tiers, feats and combat tricks, campaign options), there's the possibility of covering a lot of fantasy archetypes that just weren't properly feasible with the core book - half races, to name one.
I found a guide to convert/add the d20 Conan setting to FC (google a bit), and I think that it would be a great fit for this ruleset, as it has minimal magic going around and the action dice/campaign qualities thing that's at the core of FC is just perfect.
I still haven't had the chance to do much with it yet. It's perhaps not precisely my cup of tea in some respects, but there are things it does really well. It's probably going to be the basis for my baroque fantasy campaign.